BANDARU NAYANI BABU Vs. RAJA CHINTALAPATI RAMAKRISHNA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the District Revenue Officer (Respondent No. 2) in I.A. No. 1/89 dated 5-3-1991 allowing the appeal filed by the first respondent against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 3) in A.I.A.C.No. 1/89 dated 9-6-1989 and remanding the proceedings to the third respondent for fresh disposal.

(2.) A short but an important question of law of general importance which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the validity of an order made by the Tahsildar under Sec. 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (Act No. XXXVII of 1956) shortly referred to as the 'Act', to be specific in this case, a finding of fact that certain lands were not held by an institution can be permitted to be questioned in a collateral proceedings before the authorities exercising power under Sec. 10-A of the Act. An incidental question which arises out of the main question is whether the original or appellate authorities exercising power under Sec. 10-A of the Act can go beyond the finding of fact recorded by the Tahsildar in his order made under Sec. 3 of the Act. These questions have landed in this court for decision with a history. The history, according to the petitioners, is that the petitioners are all the cultivating ryots in respect of the lands situated In Pasilivanipalem of Chowduwada village which lands are hereinafter shortly referred to as the 'schedule lands'. The schedule lands originally belonged to late Raja Chinthalapati Suryanarayana Raj Bahadur varu. The Andhra Pradesh State Legislature enacted the Act in the year 1956 and the Act came into force on 14-12-1956. After the Act came into force the Special Deputy Tahsildar. Inams, Vizianagaram held an enquiry under Sec. 3 of the Act in respect of the schedule lands and gave his decision on 24-12-1959 holding that they are Inam lands in a Ryotwari village and they are not held by an institution. Very curiously in A.I.A.C.No. 6/80 the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Inams, Visakhapatnam again published another order in respect of the schedule lands in the District Gazette on 18-4-1980 recording diametrically opposite findings that the schedule lands are not Inam lands and they are in Zamindari village; while on the third question he agreed with the earlier order dated 24-12-1959 in holding that the schedule lands were not held by an Institution.

(3.) Section 10-A was inserted into the Act by the Amending Act 20 of 1975. Thereafterwards the petitioners filed an application under Sec. 10-A of the Act for a declaration that they have permanent rights of occupancy in the schedule lands. When the said application was pending before the Respondent No. 3, the first respondent entered the field of litigation. The first respondent filed a counter resisting the claim of the petitioners. In the counter filed by the first respondent it is stated that the owner of the village pasalavanipalem namely late Sri Chintalapati Suryanarayana Raju garu executed a will on 30-1-1927 whereunder he bequeathed the schedule lands to a choultry to be located at Chodavaram for the benefit of Kshatriya boys for educational purposes and for their residence. The District Collector filed O.S. No. 13/48 on the file of the District Judge under Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing a scheme for the choultry known as Raja Chintalapati Buchi Seetnayyamma vari choultry, Chodavaram and the District Judge passed orders on 17-3-1951 for the framing of the scheme for running the charitable institution. It is further contended that under the Hindu Religious Charitable Act the said choultry was registered as Charitable institution and the properties belonging to the institution were also registered under Sec. 38 of the Hindu Religious and Endowments Act. It was claimed that from that time onwards the schedule lands became the properties of the first respondent and they were being managed by the choultry through the Trustees. The first respondent also contended that the schedule lands are not Inam lands as defined under the Act. Therefore it was contended in the counter that the petitioners were not entitled to Ryotwari patta under Sec. 10-A of the Act. On the said application the Deputy Special Tahsildar after holding an enquiry passed an order on 19-6-1989 under Sec. 10-A read with Sec. 4 of the Act holding that the schedule lands are Inam lands granted under title deed Nos. 2984, 2985 and 2986 and declaring that the petitioners-tenants have permanent rights of occupancy in the schedule lands and directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, K. Kotapadu to proceed further under Sec. 7(1) of the Act.